ArticleHemaSphere2025
Machine learning risk stratification strategy for multiple myeloma: Insights from the EMN-HARMONY Alliance platform.
Article in HemaSphere, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Comparative Molecular Insights and Computational Modeling of Multiple Myeloma and Osteosarcoma.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Review
- Artificial intelligence reshaping the paradigm of hematologic malignancy diagnosis and treatment: From static assessment to dynamic precision management.Annals of hematology · 2026Review
- Shaping the future of multiple myeloma with artificial intelligence and digital twins: from concept to clinic.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
33 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Traditional risk stratification in multiple myeloma (MM) relies on clinical and cytogenetic parameters but has limited predictive accuracy. Machine learning (ML) offers a novel approach by leveraging large datasets and complex variable interactions. This study aimed to develop and validate novel ML-driven prognostic scores for newly diagnosed MM (NDMM), with the goal of improving upon existing ones. To this end, we analyzed data from the EMN-HARMONY MM cohort, comprising 14,345 patients, including 10,843 NDMM patients enrolled across 16 clinical trials. Three ML models were developed: (1) a comprehensive model incorporating 20 variables, (2) a reduced model including six key variables (age, hemoglobin, β2-microglobulin, albumin, 1q gain, and 17p deletion), and (3) a cytogenetics-free model. All models were internally validated using out-of-bag cross-validation and externally validated with data from the Myeloma XI trial. Model performance was evaluated using the concordance index (C-index) and time-dependent area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC-AUC). The comprehensive model achieved C-index values of 0.666 (training) and 0.667 (test) for overall survival (OS) and 0.620/0.627 for progression-free survival (PFS). The reduced model maintained accuracy (OS: 0.658/0.657; PFS: 0.608/0.614). The cytogenetics-free model showed C-index values of 0.636/0.643 for OS and 0.600/0.610 for PFS. Incorporating treatment type and best response to first-line treatment further improved performance. The new prognostic models improved over the International Staging System (ISS), Revised International Staging System (R-ISS), and Second Revision of the International Staging System (R2-ISS) and were reproducible in real-world and relapsed/refractory MM, including daratumumab-treated patients. This ML-based risk stratification strategy provides individualized risk predictions, surpassing traditional group-based methods and demonstrating broad applicability across patient subgroups. An online calculator is available at https://taxonomy.harmony-platform.eu/riskcalculator/.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.